On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 05:26:09PM +0200, Vitaly Wool wrote: > 2010/6/6 Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > Holding a suspend blocker is entirely orthogonal to runtime pm. The > > "whole kernel" will not be "active" - it can continue to hit the same > > low power state in the idle loop, and any runtime pm implementation in > > the drivers will continue to be active. > > Yeah, that might also be the case, But then again, what's the use of > suspend blockers in this situation? The difference between idle-based suspend and opportunistic suspend is that the former will continue to wake up for timers and will never be entered if something is using CPU, whereas the latter will be entered whenever no suspend blocks are held. The problem with opportunistic suspend is that you might make the decision to suspend simultaneusly with a wakeup event being received. Suspend blocks facilitate synchronisation between the kernel and userspace to ensure that all such events have been consumed and handld appropriately. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
